Narrator: Imagine waking up in the year 2050. Before you open a window, you check an app on your phone. Not for the weather, but for the air quality. The sky outside might look clear, but you know better. The air is a thick, hazy soup, a constant threat to your health. This is a world of extreme heat, frequent superstorms, and mass migrations driven by drought and rising seas. It's a world of scarcity, conflict, and despair. Now, imagine a different 2050. You wake up to the sound of birdsong outside your window, which opens to a city alive with green. Trees line the streets, and the air is fresh and clean. Energy is abundant and cheap, sourced from the sun and wind. This is a world of regeneration, community, and connection.

This stark choice between two possible futures is the central premise of The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis by Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac. As key architects of the historic 2015 Paris Agreement, the authors argue that the future is not yet written. The world we get is the one we choose to create, and that choice is being made right now, in this critical decade.

Narrator: The book opens by painting two vivid, contrasting portraits of the world in 2050. The first is the world we are currently creating if we fail to curb emissions. It’s a future defined by a 3-degree Celsius temperature rise, where the consequences of our inaction are a part of daily life. The air is so polluted that wearing a face mask is routine. Extreme weather is the norm, with coastal cities like Miami and Shanghai becoming modern-day Atlantises, their skyscrapers jutting out of the water. The Amazon rainforest has collapsed, and the great coral reefs are aquatic cemeteries. This is a world of immense human suffering, where resource scarcity, particularly for water, fuels conflict and deepens inequality. The psychological toll is immense, a constant state of anxiety and grief for a world that has been lost.

But this grim future is not inevitable. Figueres and Rivett-Carnac present a second vision: the world we must create. This is a world where we have successfully limited warming to 1.5 degrees by halving emissions every decade from 2020. Here, cities have been transformed. Urban centers like Madrid have fought the "heat island" effect by planting a "green envelope" of trees and vegetation, which cools the air, absorbs rainwater, and improves well-being. Transportation is no longer dominated by polluting cars; instead, high-speed rail, electric vehicles, and shared mobility are the norm. Food is grown locally and regeneratively, strengthening communities and our connection to the Earth. This future is not a technological utopia free of problems—the aftereffects of past warming are still felt—but it is a world built on regeneration, collaboration, and a renewed sense of shared purpose.

Narrator: To get from the first future to the second, the authors argue that we must first adopt a new set of mindsets. The first of these is "stubborn optimism." This is not a passive, feel-good hope that things will magically get better. Rather, it is a deliberate, active choice to believe that a better future is possible and to work relentlessly toward it, even in the face of daunting challenges.

The authors use their own experience with the Paris Agreement as a prime example. After the catastrophic failure of the 2009 climate negotiations in Copenhagen, the global mood was one of deep despair and cynicism. An international climate agreement seemed impossible. When Christiana Figueres took the helm of the UN Climate Change Convention, she initially shared this doubt. But she quickly realized that her own pessimism was an obstacle. To succeed, she had to become a beacon of possibility. She and her team adopted a mindset of stubborn optimism. They acknowledged the immense difficulties but focused on what could be achieved. This determined optimism became contagious, slowly shifting the dynamic of the negotiations from one of distrust to one of collective responsibility. This shift in mindset was the crucial ingredient that ultimately led 195 nations to unanimously adopt the historic Paris Agreement in 2015, proving that what once seemed impossible is achievable with the right attitude.

Narrator: The second critical mindset is a shift from a perception of scarcity to one of "endless abundance." For centuries, human society has operated on a zero-sum paradigm: for me to win, you must lose. This competitive mindset dominates everything from business to international relations. In climate negotiations, it manifested as a fight over who should bear the burden of cutting emissions, with nations competing for their "share" of a limited carbon budget.

Figueres and Rivett-Carnac argue this mindset is a dead end. In the face of a truly scarce resource—a stable climate—collaboration is the only viable option. They illustrate this with a story from the 2014 climate talks in Lima, Peru. Negotiations had stalled over the old argument of historical responsibility. Then, the head of the Chinese delegation intervened, referencing a recent US-China agreement that had reframed the issue. Instead of fighting over blame, it focused on the shared benefits of climate action for each nation's own self-interest. This unlocked the negotiations. The mindset shifted from "we are competing for a limited resource" to "we can co-create a better future for all." This new understanding—that we all win or we all lose together—is the essence of the abundance mindset. It presupposes that collaboration, not competition, is the engine for regenerating the biosphere.

Narrator: The third essential mindset is "radical regeneration." For too long, our economy has been based on a one-way path of extraction: we take from the Earth, use it, and discard it. This linear model is no longer sustainable. Regeneration means shifting to a circular model where we actively replenish what we use and care for the systems that support us.

This applies to both the planet and ourselves. Environmental regeneration involves large-scale efforts like reforesting the Earth. The book points to China’s massive program, which pays farmers to plant trees, successfully halting land degradation and improving soil fertility. It also highlights rewilding projects like the Knepp Estate in England, where simply allowing natural processes to take over has led to an explosion of biodiversity. On a personal level, regeneration is an antidote to the burnout and despair that can come from facing the climate crisis. It means connecting with nature through practices like "forest bathing" and grounding ourselves in our values so we can remain resilient. The core principle is simple: every action should be filtered through the question, "Does this contribute to humans and nature thriving together?"

Narrator: While changing our mindset is the starting point, it must be followed by action. The book outlines ten key actions, but it stresses that our most powerful role is not as a consumer, but as a citizen. Individual lifestyle changes are important, but they are not enough. Systemic change requires political engagement.

This means holding our elected officials accountable and making climate a top voting priority. It also means challenging the immense political influence of corporations that actively lobby against climate action. But perhaps most powerfully, it means participating in nonviolent political movements. The authors point to the success of Extinction Rebellion in the UK. In 2019, their ten-day protest in London, involving thousands of ordinary citizens, directly led to the UK Parliament declaring a climate emergency and adopting a net-zero emissions target by 2050. Research shows that when just 3.5% of a population participates in sustained, nonviolent protest, success becomes inevitable. This demonstrates that civil disobedience is not just a moral choice; it is one of the most effective ways to drive the radical political change necessary to secure a livable future.

Narrator: The single most important takeaway from The Future We Choose is a powerful message of agency. We are not simply passive observers of a predetermined fate. Devastation is a possibility, but it is not yet an inevitability. We still hold the pen, and the story of our future has not yet been written. The authors draw a parallel to the way the United States responded to the shock of the Sputnik launch in 1957. The nation didn't fall into despair; it created a new, inspiring story of landing a man on the moon, a goal that galvanized an entire generation.

Today, our challenge is far greater, but the principle is the same. We must write a new story for humanity—one of survival, regeneration, and thriving. This requires moving beyond feelings of powerlessness and embracing our roles in this collective mission. The book leaves us with a profound challenge: to be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them not that we did what we could, but that we did everything that was necessary. What part will you play in writing this new story?